hola, el artículo referido habla de "[c]entralised clearing of derivatives" y dice que, junto con "the push for greater transparency of prices, volumes, and exposures–to regulators and in aggregated form to the public–" los mercados deberían estar mejor capacitados "to deal better with counterparty risk, in terms of pricing it into bilateral contracts, as well as understanding its likely impact."

Regulators were this week expected to approve a so-called "interoperability" arrangement between four of Europe's largest clearing houses [...]. However, at least one national regulator—thought to be the U.K.'s Financial Services Authority—raised concerns over the deal at the eleventh hour and has postponed its approval until the end of this month at the earliest, these people said. Those worries are understood to center on risk-management issues.

[...]

[A] source close to one of the clearers said the FSA had contacted the four central counterparties, advising them that the meeting at which the decision was expected to be made would be delayed until the end of November. The FSA wasn't available to comment.

In February this year, the regulator sent a private letter to the central counterparties in which it outlined concerns that the clearing houses needed to account for a number of risks created by interoperability. These included additional counterparty credit risk, technical, and liquidity risk. The FSA hasn't prescribed any measures, however, and has left it up to the central counterparties to work out how to address these issues.

[...]

Responding to industry pressure, LCH.Clearnet, SIX x-clear, EuroCCP and EMCF agreed to link their technology systems in the first half of last year but concerns regarding the threat of "contagion risk" between clearers—namely that the clearers could spread systemic risk across borders—led the Dutch, Swiss and U.K. regulators to halt the project last November.
"

AMSTERDAM—A long-awaited agreement between four of Europe's leading clearing houses, which was expected to be signed off as early as this week and would have opened up competition in the market after years of pressure from banks and investors, has been postponed by European regulators at the last minute, according to people familiar with the matter.

Regulators were this week expected to approve a so-called "interoperability" arrangement between four of Europe's largest clearing houses: the London-based LCH.Clearnet; the Swiss clearer SIX x-clear; EuroCCP in London; and the Netherlands-based European Multilateral Clearing Facility, according to senior sources in the market infrastructure industry attending the Sibos conference in Amsterdam last week.

However, at least one national regulator—thought to be the U.K.'s Financial Services Authority—raised concerns over the deal at the eleventh hour and has postponed its approval until the end of this month at the earliest, these people said. Those worries are understood to center on risk-management issues.

Interoperability is important because it would open up the fragmented post-trade market infrastructure to competition and reduce costs for market participants and, ultimately, for investors and pension funds.

Interoperability between clearers would allow trading firms to choose which clearing house they want to clear their trades, instead of being—as they are now—forced through the clearer chosen by the exchange or platform on which they are trading.

Most exchanges and trading venues in Europe route their trades through a single clearer. All-in trading costs are consequently as much as 10 times higher than in the U.S. The lack of open competition means that fees for clearing and settlement account for the majority of trading costs for investors and market participants.

The industry hopes that interoperability could have the same impact on clearing and settlement as the 2007 markets in financial instruments directive did on equities trading, or Mifid. Mifid triggered a wave of new entrants into the equities market, increasing competition and reducing trading fees across the industry.

The head of one trading venue said last week at the Sibos international banking conference in Amsterdam: "We are expecting the go-ahead for full interoperability between these four clearers to come—at last—in the first week in November." Sources close to two of the clearers involved confirmed the expected announcement.

However, a source close to one of the clearers said the FSA had contacted the four central counterparties, advising them that the meeting at which the decision was expected to be made would be delayed until the end of November. The FSA wasn't available to comment.

In February this year, the regulator sent a private letter to the central counterparties in which it outlined concerns that the clearing houses needed to account for a number of risks created by interoperability. These included additional counterparty credit risk, technical, and liquidity risk. The FSA hasn't prescribed any measures, however, and has left it up to the central counterparties to work out how to address these issues.

The concept of interoperability was first mooted by the former European Commissioner for the internal market, Charlie McCreevy, who imposed a code of conduct on the industry in 2006. However, a combination of vested interest and protectionism by incumbent clearers meant the code was broadly ignored.

Responding to industry pressure, LCH.Clearnet, SIX x-clear, EuroCCP and EMCF agreed to link their technology systems in the first half of last year but concerns regarding the threat of "contagion risk" between clearers—namely that the clearers could spread systemic risk across borders—led the Dutch, Swiss and U.K. regulators to halt the project last November.

In August, the clearing houses re-submitted a detailed plan that addressed these concerns by including provisions for more robust risk management between the clearers. It is understood the regulators have yet to finish their analysis relating to the cash collateral provisions designed to address their concerns over contagion.

"Interoperating in cash equities is not tremendously difficult," one person close to the discussions said. "The problem has been that during the reviews that the regulators have been performing during the last year, the analysis produces a list of questions and the answers generate more questions, so it's been a fairly circular process."

An Undeserved Win for the GOP - Conventional wisdom says the president was too liberal and tried to do too much. Nonsense.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703506904575592900976030696.html

William Galston, former domestic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, writing at tnr.com, on the independent vote
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805704575594410054850060.html

The Two Left Coasts - Why the GOP wave didn't wash over New York and California
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703506904575592291628618242.html

Global Agriculture and Food Security Program Partners Announce Second Round of Grants
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg945.htm

The GOP's 2012 Game Plan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805704575594810781693940.html

Will Post-Elections Australia Pursue a Course Independent of the United States?
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/search-for-publications/browse-alphabetic-list-of-titles/?class_call=view&mode=view&pub_ID=3596

Boehner: What the Next Speaker Must Do - Secrecy, arrogance, and the abuse of power have shattered the bonds of trust between the people and their elected leaders. Repairing that trust requires sweeping change, beginning with an end to earmarks.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805704575594280015549088.html

The German Ecological-Industrial Complex. By Malte Lehming
This 'good' ideology increases inequality more than neo-liberal policies ever could
WSJ, Nov 04, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704141104575588121224451544.html

Berlin - Germans are the most eager sorters of trash. They dutifully bring their light bulbs and batteries to special recycling points, introduced deposits on bottles and cans seven years ago, build tunnels under highways so frogs can safely cross. They fight for every endangered tree and animal. More and more windmills dominate the landscape. Environmental studies is taught in school, and the German chancellor's work for climate protection is one of her trademarks.

Historically and psychologically, this close connection to ecology is understandable. The Germans need some sort of ideology. They've had bad experiences with fascism and communism and had to be painstakingly educated in the ideals of freedom and democratic virtue. So ecology was the right idea at the right time. Germans believe it gives them a vision that puts them, for the first time, on the right side of history, the side of the good and of the future.

This explains the inexorable rise of the Greens. For the last five weeks, the party has been polling ahead of the Social Democrats (SPD), replacing them as the second strongest political force. Only slightly behind the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Greens could even appoint the chancellor in a coalition with the SPD if national elections were held today.

The Greens' voters long ago stopped coming primarily from the left-wing alternative milieu. Their strongest supporters now come from the well-off middle class. According to the polling institute Forsa, 37% of German civil servants would vote Green. Among upper-level civil servants the figure is as high as 41%. Nearly one in three self-employed voters supports the environmental party. Green voters are "well-off post-materialists": Their average household income is higher than that of the supporters of any other party. Workers and retirees go elsewhere.

That said, all of Germany's other parties have long-since discovered ecology as well. Chancellor Angela Merkel was once the federal environmental minister, as was (SPD) leader Sigmar Gabriel. Even the market-friendly Free Democrats (FDP) have turned greenish. The governing CDU-FDP coalition recently adopted the world's most ambitious climate-protection program. "Clean Energy For Everyone" was the slogan. Wind parks in the sea, solar plants, energy storage facilities, energy-saving renovations: The goal is that by 2050, Germany should be able to power itself almost entirely through regenerative energy while the carbon dioxide emissions of all buildings will be reduced to zero.

This will be enormously expensive, but that doesn't bother the Germans. Energy prices have already risen drastically, and Mrs. Merkel has prepared the country for rent increases. "Of course, at first glance not everyone likes that," she says, but in the long run everyone will gain. There is consensus that current generations must bear the main burden of ecologically restructuring Germany's energy system. We're the good guys.

And these days, being good even pays off. Given the increasingly global regulations to curb pollution and carbon emissions, exporting countries hope to make environmentally friendly technology the leading industry of the 21st century. In 15 years, according to a government-sponsored study, green technology will overtake the automobile industry as Germany's core industry. A multi-billion-dollar market has developed, and Germany is the leader in many emerging branches, with a worldwide market share in green technology of around 16%. Some 1.5 million Germans already work in the green industry.

Ecology has become an economic "stimulus" program of sorts. Consumers are forced to buy new versions of expensive everyday products—from refrigerators to cars—not because of age or deterioration, but because they no longer conform to the most recent environmental standards. These norms also serve as wonderful import-defense weapons. No dirty plastic dolls from China can enter, no gene-manipulated food may be purchased. Germany's purity law has turned into a type of national environmentalism. Our morality protects our markets.

But it's the consumer who pays the piper. Climate-friendly retrofitting of Germany's buildings might cost some €2.5 trillion. Building owners can transfer these costs to tenants. That means that rents will rise steeply for years. In Berlin alone, according to estimates by tenants' associations, nearly one in three households will have to move because they will no longer be able to afford their old apartments. This will primarily affect the unemployed and those with low income.

You have to be able to afford ecology. The Greens can, but weaker social groups will suffer. Expensive organic products, kerosene surcharges, gas price increases, higher parking fees, rising energy prices and rents—ecology makes the poor poorer. And for those who can no longer afford to fly to Mallorca, the Greens graciously recommend taking a vacation at home. That will boost domestic tourism.

Those who believe they are on the right side of history may view the social consequences of radical environmentalism, in coldly arrogant tones, as unavoidable collateral damage. And wasn't it always unpleasant for Germany's well-off to share the beaches in exotic vacation locales with simple workingclass families, just because of those cheap charter flights?

The Greens like to portray themselves as fighting against the excesses of capitalism. Now it's clear that the ecological-industrial complex increases inequality more than neo-liberal policies ever could.